Law

Why Should Every Indian Have An Opinion On NJAC?

It is important for all of us to understand the changes being proposed or taking shape in our constitutional institutions. A healthy democracy needs an informed public. If we stay unaware, we risk doing a serious disservice to our country and to the generations that follow. With that in mind, here is a simple look at how judges are appointed to our High Courts and the Supreme Court, along with a short explanation of what the collegium and the NJAC mean.

The collegium is the system through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed in India. It was not created by the Constitution. It evolved through judicial rulings that placed the power of selection in the hands of senior judges. The collegium consists of five members, the Chief Justice of India and the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court. The core idea behind this model is to shield the judiciary from political influence and preserve its independence.

The collegium has its drawbacks. Its functioning is often viewed as opaque. There are no publicly stated criteria for selection and very little explanation for why some names move forward while others do not. This creates an impression that the system runs on internal discretion with limited accountability. There is also a feeling that judges choosing judges can make the process somewhat closed and insular.

To address these issues, the government introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2014. The NJAC aimed to make appointments more open by bringing together Judiciary and the Executive along with two eminent citizens. It was designed to have six members. The Chief Justice of India at the head as the ex officio chairperson, alongside the CJI, the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court as ex officio members. The Union Law Minister as the representative of the executive. The remaining two seats for eminent persons from civil society, chosen through a nomination process that involve the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition.

Supporters saw it as a way to widen participation and build greater public trust. Yet the NJAC carried its own risks. The presence of the executive raised concerns of political influence. The rule that any two members could block a name effectively, gave the government an indirect veto, allowing its influence to be channeled through a minority bloc of members. Many feared this would weaken the freedom of the judiciary.

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC. The court held that although the collegium is imperfect, it still offers stronger protection for judicial independence. The reasoning was simple. A less transparent process is safer than one that allows political power to shape who sits on the bench. In a democracy where courts must often check the government, this insulation is seen as essential for the rule of law.

The newly appointed Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, has indicated that he is open to revisiting the idea of the NJAC and examining the petition seeking its review.

What are your views on judicial appointments. Do you feel the NJAC can bring real transparency, or does it open the door for political influence in the courts.

Dear Readers,
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.

Related posts